Air carrier medium large transport complaint about approach controller technique.

Attributes
ACN	94454
Time
Date	198809
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ord
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : ord
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : straight in enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 220 flight time total : 20000 flight time type : 1200
ASRS Report	94454
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

I was cleared to intercept runway 14R localizer maintain 4000'. We were about 17-18 mi out. At 10 mi out I called approach control and asked to get cleared the approach. The controller alleged he had called 3 times and we had not answered. I said we had not heard any of his xmissions. To that he replied that is not my problem. Prior to this the controller had repeatedly told pilots to listen up. My opinion was this controller was no longer functioning in a normal manner. When I got on the ground I asked 3 pilots that were on approach if they had heard any xmissions for our flight that were not acknowledged. They all said they had not. My concern is not over the missed transmission or failure to give a timely clearance. My concern is with the answer: 'that's your problem, not mine.' not only does this violate the principle of 2-WAY communication, it is unsafe. As it turned out we were able to land straight in, but the tower had us immediately reduce to min speed to compensate for close spacing. I contacted the approach supervisor at ord and he volunteered to pull the tape and review the situation. I feel that should be sufficient action. However, you may desire this report to fill in your data base.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG COMPLAINT ABOUT APCH CTLR TECHNIQUE.

Narrative: I WAS CLRED TO INTERCEPT RWY 14R LOC MAINTAIN 4000'. WE WERE ABOUT 17-18 MI OUT. AT 10 MI OUT I CALLED APCH CTL AND ASKED TO GET CLRED THE APCH. THE CTLR ALLEGED HE HAD CALLED 3 TIMES AND WE HAD NOT ANSWERED. I SAID WE HAD NOT HEARD ANY OF HIS XMISSIONS. TO THAT HE REPLIED THAT IS NOT MY PROB. PRIOR TO THIS THE CTLR HAD REPEATEDLY TOLD PLTS TO LISTEN UP. MY OPINION WAS THIS CTLR WAS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING IN A NORMAL MANNER. WHEN I GOT ON THE GND I ASKED 3 PLTS THAT WERE ON APCH IF THEY HAD HEARD ANY XMISSIONS FOR OUR FLT THAT WERE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. THEY ALL SAID THEY HAD NOT. MY CONCERN IS NOT OVER THE MISSED XMISSION OR FAILURE TO GIVE A TIMELY CLRNC. MY CONCERN IS WITH THE ANSWER: 'THAT'S YOUR PROB, NOT MINE.' NOT ONLY DOES THIS VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF 2-WAY COM, IT IS UNSAFE. AS IT TURNED OUT WE WERE ABLE TO LAND STRAIGHT IN, BUT THE TWR HAD US IMMEDIATELY REDUCE TO MIN SPD TO COMPENSATE FOR CLOSE SPACING. I CONTACTED THE APCH SUPVR AT ORD AND HE VOLUNTEERED TO PULL THE TAPE AND REVIEW THE SITUATION. I FEEL THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT ACTION. HOWEVER, YOU MAY DESIRE THIS RPT TO FILL IN YOUR DATA BASE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.